Filed: Feb. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2018
Summary: DEFENDANT ORTIZ MACHINE COMPANY, LLC'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (First Request for Extension) C.W. HOFFMAN, JR. , District Judge . Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) and Local Rule IA 6-1, Defendant Ortiz Machine Company, LLC ("Ortiz"), by and through its attorneys, without waiving any jurisdictional objections/defenses, moves for a 1-week extension to file its response to the complaint, and states: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), Ortiz's respo
Summary: DEFENDANT ORTIZ MACHINE COMPANY, LLC'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (First Request for Extension) C.W. HOFFMAN, JR. , District Judge . Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) and Local Rule IA 6-1, Defendant Ortiz Machine Company, LLC ("Ortiz"), by and through its attorneys, without waiving any jurisdictional objections/defenses, moves for a 1-week extension to file its response to the complaint, and states: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), Ortiz's respon..
More
DEFENDANT ORTIZ MACHINE COMPANY, LLC'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
(First Request for Extension)
C.W. HOFFMAN, JR., District Judge.
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) and Local Rule IA 6-1, Defendant Ortiz Machine Company, LLC ("Ortiz"), by and through its attorneys, without waiving any jurisdictional objections/defenses, moves for a 1-week extension to file its response to the complaint, and states:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), Ortiz's response to the complaint is currently due on or before February 26, 2018.
Ortiz recently retained local counsel in Nevada, and requires additional time to locate, organize, and review relevant documents in order to prepare an appropriate response to the complaint. This and other matters have prevented Ortiz from completing its response to the complaint. Accordingly, Ortiz respectfully seeks a 1-week extension of time, up to and including March 5, 2018, to respond to the complaint. This is Ortiz's first motion to extend the deadline to respond to the Complaint.
This motion is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.
Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by this limited extension of time given that there are currently no scheduled hearings in this case.
Counsel for Ortiz conferred with Plaintiff's counsel who stated that Plaintiff agrees with the requested extension of time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
